Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
K.Pullaiah vs State Of Ap on 1 July, 2024
APHC010074332019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3333]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2042/2019
Between:
K.pullaiah and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. MD MUJUBYUDDIN
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
2
VS,J
Crlp_2042_2019
I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024
IN/AND
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2042 OF 2019
ORDER:
I.A.No.1 of 2024 and I.A.No.2 of 2024 I.A.No.2 of 2024 is filed under Section 320 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C seeking leave to compound the offence punishable under Sections 120 (6), 166, 167, 191, 192, 195, 201, 211, 218, 219, 420, 463, 464 and 499 of I.P.C. in CFR No.1262 of 2028 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Lakkireddipalli, YSR District and I.A.No.1 of 2024 is filed seeking to record the compromise among the parties and quash the proceedings in CFR No.1262 of 2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Lakkireddipalli, YSR District as the matter is settled outside the Court and they entered into compromise and filed joint memo along with this petition.
Defacto complainant and the petitioners/accused are also present and they are identified by their counsel and Public Prosecutor, produced Photostat copies of aadhar cards in proof of their identity.
On enquiry, the parties stated that they settled the issue outside the Court due to intervention of elders and well-wishers and they wanted to lead peaceful life. Further, when terms of 3 VS,J Crlp_2042_2019 compromise are explained in vernacular language, they are admitted to be true and correct.
While dealing with the powers of the Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Apex Court in "Anita Maria Das and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and another1" held as follows:
"While deciding whether to exercise its power Under Section 482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on and even the charge- sheet has not been filed."
By applying the principle laid down in the above judgment, since the matter is still under investigation in view of the interim order passed by this Court on 15.04.2019 and the settlement is in the interest of both petitioners and complainant; I find that it is a fit case to permit the petitioners to compound the offences.
Accordingly, I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024 are ordered.
1(2018) 3 SCC 290 4 VS,J Crlp_2042_2019 Crl.P.No.2042 OF 2019 In view of the orders passed in I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2024 in Crl.P.No.2042 of 2019, the present criminal petition is allowed in terms of the joint memo dated 01.07.2024.
Registry is directed to annex a copy of the joint memo dated 01.07.2024 to this order.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand dismissed.
____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 01.07.2024 Ksp